Deep Learning to Distinguish Benign from Malignant Renal Lesions Based on Routine MR Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: With increasing incidence of renal mass, it is important to make a pretreatment differentiation between benign renal mass and malignant tumor. We aimed to develop a deep learning model that distinguishes benign renal tumors from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by applying a residual convolutional neural network (ResNet) on routine MR imaging. Experimental Design: Preoperative MR images (T2-weighted and T1-postcontrast sequences) of 1,162 renal lesions definitely diagnosed on pathology or imaging in a multicenter cohort were divided into training, validation, and test sets (70:20:10 split). An ensemble model based on ResNet was built combining clinical variables and T1C and T2WI MR images using a bagging classifier to predict renal tumor pathology. Final model performance was compared with expert interpretation and the most optimized radiomics model. Results: Among the 1,162 renal lesions, 655 were malignant and 507 were benign. Compared with a baseline zero rule algorithm, the ensemble deep learning model had a statistically significant higher test accuracy (0.70 vs. 0.56, P = 0.004). Compared with all experts averaged, the ensemble deep learning model had higher test accuracy (0.70 vs. 0.60, P = 0.053), sensitivity (0.92 vs. 0.80, P = 0.017), and specificity (0.41 vs. 0.35, P = 0.450). Compared with the radiomics model, the ensemble deep learning model had higher test accuracy (0.70 vs. 0.62, P = 0.081), sensitivity (0.92 vs. 0.79, P = 0.012), and specificity (0.41 vs. 0.39, P = 0.770). Conclusions: Deep learning can noninvasively distinguish benign renal tumors from RCC using conventional MR imaging in a multi-institutional dataset with good accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity comparable with experts and radiomics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".